Longitudinal comparison of three depression measures in adult cancer patients

Trauma exposure correlates among patients receiving care in federally qualified health centers

Over 80% of adults in the general population experience trauma. Rates of patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are high in primary care settings and are likely to be even higher in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Trauma exposure has been linked to psychiatric symptoms and physical health comorbidities, though little research has focused on FQHC patients. This study addresses this by examining clinical and sociodemographic correlates of specific trauma types among FQHC patients. We analyzed secondary data from patients who screened positive for PTSD and were receiving health care in FQHCs in a clinical trial (N = 978). Individuals who did versus did not experience a specific trauma type were compared using between-group tests. In the sample, 91.3% of participants were exposed to a DSM-5 Criterion A traumatic event, with 79.6% experiencing two or more trauma types. Witnessing a life-threatening event (57.3%) and physical assault (55.7%) were the most common traumatic experiences. Physical health comorbidities and worse physical health functioning were associated with a higher likelihood of exposure to all trauma types, with effect sizes larger than PTSD, ds = 0.78-1.35. Depressive and anxiety symptoms were also associated with a higher likelihood of experiencing nearly all trauma types to a lesser magnitude. People of color, OR = 2.45, and individuals experiencing financial inequities, OR = 1.73, had higher odds of experiencing serious accidents as well as other trauma types. The findings highlight the need for trauma-informed care, including routine trauma and PTSD screening, for FQHC patients.

Comparable Minimally Important Differences and Responsiveness of Brief Pain Inventory and PEG Pain Scales across 6 Trials

The 3-item pain intensity (P), interference with the enjoyment of life (E), and interference with general activity (G), or PEG, has become one of the most widely used measures of pain severity and interference. The minimally important differences (MID) and responsiveness of the PEG are essential metrics for solidifying its role in research and clinical care. The current study aims to establish the MID and responsiveness of the PEG by synthesizing data from 1,710 participants across 6 controlled trials. MIDs were estimated using absolute score changes among individuals reporting their pain was "a little better" on a retrospective global change anchor as well as distribution-based estimates using standard deviation thresholds and 1 and 2 standard errors of measurement. Responsiveness was assessed using standardized response means, area under the curve, and treatment effect sizes. MID estimates for the PEG ranged from 0.60 to 1.1 when using 0.35 SD, and 0.78 to 1.22 using 1 standard error of measurement. MID estimates using the global anchor had somewhat more variability but most estimates ranged from 1.0 to 1.75. Responsiveness effect sizes were generally large (>.80) for standardized response means and moderate (>.50) for treatment effect. Similarly, the most area under the curve values demonstrated an acceptable level of scale responsiveness (≥.70). Importantly, MID estimates and responsiveness of the PEG and BPI scales were largely comparable when aggregating data across trials. Our synthesis indicates that 1 point is a reasonable MID estimate on these 0- to 10-point pain scales, with 2 points being an upper bound. PERSPECTIVE: This article synthesizes data from 6 clinical trials to establish the minimally important difference (MID) and responsiveness of the 3-item PEG pain scale. The PEG demonstrated good responsiveness, and 1 to 2 points proved to be reasonable estimates for the lower and upper bounds of the MID.

Study protocol for a randomized trial of bridge: Person-centered collaborative care for serious mental illness and cancer

BACKGROUND

Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) experience inequities in cancer care that contribute to increased cancer mortality. Involving mental health at the time of cancer diagnosis may improve cancer care delivery for patients with SMI yet access to care remains challenging. Collaborative care is a promising approach to integrate mental health and cancer care that has not yet been studied in this marginalized population.

METHODS/DESIGN

We describe a 24-week, two-arm, single-site randomized trial of person-centered collaborative care (Bridge) for patients with SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression with psychiatric hospitalization) and their caregivers. 120 patients are randomized 1:1 to Bridge or Enhanced Usual Care (EUC) along with their caregivers. Researchers proactively identify individuals with SMI and a new breast, lung, gastrointestinal, or head and neck cancer that can be treated with curative intent. EUC includes informing oncologists about the patient's psychiatric diagnosis, notifying patients about available psychosocial services, and tracking patient and caregiver outcomes. Bridge includes a proactive assessment by psychiatry and social work, a person-centered, team approach including collaboration between mental health and oncology, and increased access to evidence-based psycho-oncology care. The primary outcome is cancer care disruptions evaluated by a blinded panel of oncologists. Secondary outcomes include patient and caregiver-reported outcomes and healthcare utilization. Barriers to Bridge implementation and dissemination are assessed using mixed methods.

DISCUSSION

This trial will inform efforts to systematically identify individuals with SMI and cancer and generate the first experimental evidence for the impact of person-centered collaborative care on cancer care for this underserved population.

Knowledge about Treatment (KaT) in Mental Health Services

This study developed and psychometrically evaluated a brief measure of mental health treatment knowledge (N = 726). Scores from Knowledge about Treatment (KaT) demonstrated a unidimensional measure with good model fit, internal consistency reliability, convergent and predictive validity, test-retest reliability, and measurement invariance across gender, ethnicity, education, and poverty status.

Depression and Long-Term Prescription Opioid Use and Opioid Use Disorder: Implications for Pain Management in Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Preventing depression in cancer patients on long-term opioid therapy should begin with depression screening before opioid initiation and repeated screening during treatment. In weighing the high morbidity of depression and opioid use disorder in patients with chronic cancer pain against a dearth of evidence-based therapies studied in this population, patients and clinicians are left to choose among imperfect but necessary treatment options. When possible, we advise engaging psychiatric and pain/palliative specialists through collaborative care models and recommending mindfulness and psychotherapy to all patients with significant depression alongside cancer pain. Medications for depression should be reserved for moderate to severe symptoms. We recommend escitalopram/citalopram or sertraline among selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), or the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine if patients have a significant component of neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (consider nortriptyline or desipramine, which have better anticholinergic profiles) should be considered for patients who do not respond to or tolerate SSRI/SNRIs. Existing evidence is inadequate to definitively recommend methylphenidate or novel agents, such as ketamine or psilocybin, as adjunctive treatments for cancer-related depression and pain. Physicians who treat patients with cancer pain should utilize universal precautions to limit the risk of non-medical opioid use (non-medical opioid use). Patients should be screened for non-medical opioid use behaviors at initial consultation and at regular intervals during treatment using a non-judgmental approach that reduces stigma. Co-management with an addiction specialist may be indicated for patients at high risk of non-medical opioid use and opioid use disorder. Buprenorphine and methadone are indicated for the treatment of opioid use disorder, and while they have not been systematically studied for treatment of opioid use disorder in patients with cancer pain, they do provide analgesia for cancer pain. While an interdisciplinary team approach to manage psychological stress may be beneficial, this may not be possible for patients treated outside of comprehensive cancer centers.

Composite measures of pain, anxiety, and depressive (PAD) symptoms: Construct and predictive validity

OBJECTIVE

Pain, anxiety, and depression (PAD) are common, co-occurring symptoms that adversely affect one another and may respond to common treatments. PAD composite measures would be useful for tracking treatment response in patients with PAD symptoms. The goal of this study is to compare 3 different PAD composite scales in terms of construct validity, responsiveness, and utility in predicting global improvement.

METHOD

The sample consisted of 294 primary care patients enrolled in a telecare trial for treating pain, anxiety, and depression. Assessments at baseline and 3 months included the Brief Pain Inventory, PHQ-9 depression scale, GAD-7 anxiety scale, PROMIS measures, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form items, disability measures, and patient-reported global improvement. Construct validity of the PAD composite measures, their responsiveness, and their ability to predict global improvement was analyzed using Pearson correlations, standardized response means, and receiver operating characteristics analysis.

RESULTS

PAD composite measures correlated strongly with one another, and moderately with measures of function, vitality, and disability. Each PAD composite measure demonstrated similar responsiveness in detecting improvement at 3 months as assessed by standardized response means (SRMs) and area under the curve (AUC analyses).The SRMs for partial and substantial global improvement corresponded to moderate (Cohen's d of 0.58 to 0.69) and large (0.81 to 0.93) effect sizes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Three different PAD composite measures demonstrate good construct validity as well as responsiveness in detecting global improvement of pain, anxiety and depression at 3 months.

Responsiveness of PROMIS and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) Depression Scales in three clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The PROMIS depression scales are reliable and valid measures that have extensive normative data in general population samples. However, less is known about how responsive they are to detect change in clinical settings and how their responsiveness compares to legacy measures. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the responsiveness of the PROMIS and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) depression scales in three separate samples.

METHODS

We used data from three clinical trials (two in patients with chronic pain and one in stroke survivors) totaling 651 participants. At both baseline and follow-up, participants completed four PROMIS depression fixed-length scales as well as legacy measures: Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item and 2-item scales (PHQ-9 and PHQ-2) and the SF-36 Mental Health scale. We measured global ratings of depression change, both prospectively and retrospectively, as anchors to classify patients as improved, unchanged, or worsened. Responsiveness was assessed with standardized response means, statistical tests comparing change groups, and area-under-curve analysis.

RESULTS

The PROMIS depression and legacy scales had generally comparable responsiveness. Moreover, the four PROMIS depression scales of varying lengths were similarly responsive. In general, measures performed better in detecting depression improvement than depression worsening. For all measures, responsiveness varied based on the study sample and on whether depression improved or worsened.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PROMIS and PHQ depression scales are brief public domain measures that are responsive (i.e., sensitive to change) and thus appropriate as outcome measures in research as well as for monitoring treatment in clinical practice. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01236521, NCT01583985, NCT01507688.

Core Outcome Measures for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Research: Recommendations from a Veterans Health Administration Work Group

OBJECTIVE

Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) disorders are among the most prevalent and disabling conditions worldwide. It would be advantageous to have common outcome measures when comparing results across different CMSP research studies.

METHODS

The Veterans Health Administration appointed a work group to recommend core outcome measures for assessing pain intensity and interference as well as important secondary domains in clinical research. The work group used three streams of data to inform their recommendations: 1) literature synthesis augmented by three recently completed trials; 2) review and comparison of measures recommended by other expert groups; 3) two Delphi surveys of work group members.

RESULTS

The single-item numerical rating scale and seven-item Brief Pain Inventory interference scale emerged as the recommended measures for assessing pain intensity and interference, respectively. The secondary domains ranked most important included physical functioning and depression, followed by sleep, anxiety, and patient-reported global impression of change (PGIC). For these domains, the work group recommended the Patient-Reported Outcome Information System four-item physical function and sleep scales, the Patient Health Questionnaire two-item depression scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder two-item anxiety scale, and the single-item PGIC. Finally, a single-item National Health Interview Survey item was favored for defining chronic pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Two scales comprising eight items are recommended as core outcome measures for pain intensity and interference in all studies of chronic musculoskeletal pain, and brief scales comprising 13 additional items can be added when possible to assess important secondary domains.

Minimally important differences and severity thresholds are estimated for the PROMIS depression scales from three randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) scales are increasingly being used to measure symptoms in research and practice. The purpose of this study was to determine the minimally important difference (MID) and severity thresholds (cut-points) for the four fixed-length PROMIS depression scales.

METHODS

The study sample was adult participants in three randomized clinical trials (N=651). MID was estimated using multiple distribution- and anchor-based approaches including assessing correspondence between Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and PROMIS depression scores.

RESULTS

The best MID estimate was a PROMIS depression T-score of 3.5 points with most methods producing an MID in the 3 to 4 point range across all three samples. MID estimates were similar for all four PROMIS scales. A PHQ-9 1-point change equated to a PROMIS 1.25-point T-score change. PROMIS T-scores of 55, 60, 65, and 70 appeared to be reasonable thresholds for mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

The study sample was predominantly male veterans with either chronic pain (2 trials) or previous stroke (1 trial). The severity of depression was mild to moderate.

CONCLUSION

A T-score of 3 to 4 points is a reasonable MID for PROMIS depression scales and can be used to assess treatment effects in both practice and research as well to calculate sample sizes for clinical trials. Severity cut-points can help interpret the meaning of scores and action thresholds for treatment decisions.

Typologies of Combat Exposure and Their Effects on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Depression Symptoms

The present study identified distinct classes of U.S. military service members based on their combat experiences and examined mental health outcomes and longitudinal growth curves of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression symptoms associated with each class. Participants were 551 active duty service members who screened positive for PTSD and/or depression based on DSM-IV-TR criteria. All participants completed the Combat Experiences Scale at baseline as well as PTSD and depression measures at baseline and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. A latent class analysis identified four classes of service members based on their combat experiences: limited exposure, medical exposure, unit exposure, and personal exposure. Service members in the personal exposure class were characterized by a distinct mental health profile: They reported a higher level of PTSD symptoms at baseline and a higher prevalence of traumatic brain injury and PTSD diagnoses during the course of the study. The limited exposure class was more likely to receive diagnoses of depression and adjustment disorders. All classes except the medical exposure class demonstrated a slight decrease in PTSD and depression symptoms over time. However, participants in the limited exposure class had a larger decrease in PTSD and depression symptoms earlier in care but did not demonstrate superior long-term symptom improvements at 12 months compared to the other groups. These results inform PTSD development models and have implications for the screening and clinical management of combat-exposed service members.

Assessing depression improvement with the remission evaluation and mood inventory tool (REMIT)

OBJECTIVE

The Remission Evaluation and Mood Inventory Tool (REMIT) was developed as a brief complementary measure to provide a more robust assessment of depression improvement than tracking DSM-V symptom improvement alone. This study provides further validation of the REMIT tool and examines its utility in predicting depression improvement.

METHODS

The sample comprised 294 primary care patients enrolled in a telecare trial of pain plus depression and/or anxiety. Assessments collected included: REMIT, PHQ-9 and measures assessing anxiety, pain, sleep, fatigue, somatization, health-related quality of life and disability. Data was analyzed to assess the REMIT's validity, its minimally important difference (MID), and its utility in predicting 6-month depression improvement.

RESULTS

Convergent and construct validity of REMIT was supported by moderate correlations with mental health measures and weaker correlation with physical health measures. MID of approximately 2 points for REMIT was estimated by two metrics: 0.5 standard deviation and 1 standard error of measurement. Both baseline and 3-month change in REMIT scores predicted depression improvement at 6 months. Indeed, REMIT was as good or better predictor than the PHQ-9.

CONCLUSION

The REMIT measure is a brief 5-item tool that augments core DSM-V symptom-oriented metrics in assessing and predicting recovery from major depression.

Comparative validity and responsiveness of PHQ-ADS and other composite anxiety-depression measures

BACKGROUND

Composite measures that assess the overall burden of anxiety and depressive symptoms have been infrequently evaluated in the same study. The objective of this study was to compare the validity and responsiveness of the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety-Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS) and other composite anxiety-depression measures.

METHODS

The sample comprised 256 primary care patients enrolled in a telecare trial of chronic musculoskeletal pain and comorbid depression and/or anxiety. Measures included the PHQ-ADS; the 8-item and 4-item depression and anxiety scales from the PROMIS profiles; the PHQ-anxiety-depression scale (PHQ-4); the SF-36 Mental Health scale; and the SF-12 Mental Component Summary scale. Correlations among these measures and health-related quality of life measures were examined. Responsiveness was evaluated by standardized response means, area under the curve (AUC) analyses, and treatment effect sizes in the trial.

RESULTS

Convergent and construct validity was supported by strong correlations of the composite depression-anxiety measures with one another and moderate correlations with health-related quality of life measures, respectively. All composite measures differentiated patients who were better at 3 months, whereas the PHQ-ADS and PHQ-4 also distinguished the subgroup that had worsened. AUCs for composite measures were generally similar, whereas treatment effect sizes were largest for the PHQ-ADS.

LIMITATIONS

The study sample was predominantly male veterans enrolled from primary care who had chronic musculoskeletal pain and moderate levels of depression and anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Composite depression and anxiety scales are valid and responsive measures that may be useful as outcomes in research and clinical practice.

Bridge: Person-Centered Collaborative Care for Patients with Serious Mental Illness and Cancer

BACKGROUND

Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) experience increased cancer mortality due to inequities in cancer treatment. Psychiatric care at cancer diagnosis may improve care delivery, yet models for integrating psychiatry and cancer care are lacking. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a person-centered collaborative care trial for SMI and cancer.

SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS

We developed the Bridge intervention for patients with SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severe major depression) and cancer. Bridge includes proactive identification of SMI, person-centered care from a psychiatrist and case manager, and collaboration with oncology. We conducted a 12-week, single-group trial in patients with SMI and a new breast, gastrointestinal, lung, or head/neck cancer. We assessed the feasibility of patient identification, enrollment and study completion; evaluated acceptability and perceived benefit with exit interviews with patients, caregivers, and oncology clinicians; and examined change in psychiatric symptoms with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS).

RESULTS

From November 2015 to April 2016, 30/33 eligible patients (90.9%) enrolled, and 25/29 (86.2%) completed assessments at all timepoints, meeting feasibility criteria. Of 24 patients, 23 (95.8%) found meeting with the psychiatrist helpful; 16/19 caregivers (84.2%) shared that Bridge addressed key caregiving challenges. Oncology clinicians evaluated Bridge as "very" or "most" useful for 94.3% of patients. Exit interviews with all participant groups suggested that Bridge fostered patient-clinician trust, increased access to psychiatric treatment, and enabled patients to initiate and complete cancer treatment. Psychiatric symptoms on the BPRS improved from baseline to 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Bridge is a feasible and acceptable care delivery model for patients with SMI, their caregivers, and oncology clinicians. Randomized trials are warranted to assess the efficacy of improving cancer outcomes in this underserved population.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Serious mental illness affects 13 million U.S. adults who experience increased cancer mortality. To improve outcomes, new models of integrated oncology and mental health care are urgently needed. This study found that it was feasible to identify, enroll, and retain patients with serious mental illness and a new cancer in a trial of integrated mental health and cancer care (Bridge). Patients, caregivers, and oncologists reported that Bridge facilitated the initiation and completion of cancer care. Randomized trials are warranted to investigate the impact on cancer outcomes. Trial procedures may inform consent, engagement, and trial retention for patients with mental illness.

Treatment of Depression in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Critical Review

Aims and background

To summarize current knowledge on psychopharmacological and psychotherapeutic options for patients with breast cancer and comorbid depression, starting from the psychiatric viewpoint. Issues on diagnostic boundaries of depression and outcome measures are raised.

Methods

We completed a literature review from the last 30 years (until March 2012) using PubMed by pairing the key words: ‘breast cancer and depression treatment’ (about 1431 works, including 207 reviews), ‘breast cancer and antidepressants’ (about 305 works, including 66 reviews), and in particular ‘selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and breast cancer’ (38 works, including 10 reviews) and ‘breast cancer and psychotherapy’ (603 works, including 84 reviews). Papers in the English language were selected, including recent reviews.

Results

There is little evidence for the superiority of any one specific intervention with pharmacological options or psychotherapy. The heterogeneity of assessment criteria, the small number of subjects collected in systematic studies, the difficulty in adopting standardized outcome measures, and the limited numbers of available drugs with a favorable side effect profile are the main limitations that emerge from the literature. No conclusive findings are available on mid-term/long-term treatment strategies, or when depression is part of a bipolar disorder.

Conclusions

Further research is necessary to define the most appropriate approach to depression when it occurs in comorbidity with breast cancer. A more accurate definition of the clinical phenotypes of depression in the special population of patients with breast cancer is suggested as a key issue.

Patients with advanced cancer and depression report a significantly higher symptom burden than non-depressed patients

Objective

Clinical observations indicate that patients with advanced cancer and depression report higher symptom burden than nondepressed patients. This is rarely examined empirically. Study aim was to investigate the association between self-reported depression disorder (DD) and symptoms in patients with advanced cancer controlled for prognostic factors.

Method

The sample included 935 patients, mean age 62, 52% males, from an international multicentre observational study (European Palliative Care Research Collaborative – Computerised Symptom Assessment and Classification of Pain, Depression and Physical Function). DD was assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and scored with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder-5 algorithm for major depressive disorder, excluding somatic symptoms. Symptom burden was assessed by summing scores on somatic Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) symptoms, excluding depression, anxiety, and well-being. Item-by-item scores and symptom burden of those with and without DD were compared using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests. The relative importance of sociodemographic, medical, and prognostic factors and DD in predicting symptom burden was assessed by hierarchical, multiple regression analyses.

Result

Patients with DD reported significantly higher scores on ESAS items and a twofold higher symptom burden compared with those without. Factors associated with higher symptom burden were as follows. Diagnosis: lung (β = 0.15, p < 0.001) or breast cancer (β = 0.08, p < 0.05); poorer prognosis: high C-reactive protein (β = 0.08, p < 0.05), lower Karnofsky Performance Status (β = −0.14, p < 0.001), and greater weight loss (β = −0.15, p < 0.001); taking opioids (β = 0.11, p < 0.01); and having DD (β = 0.23, p < 0.001). The full model explained 18% of the variance in symptom burden. DD explained 4.4% over and above that explained by all the other variables.

Significance of results

Depression in patients with advanced cancer is associated with higher symptom burden. These results encourage improved routines for identifying and treating those suffering from depression.

Depression-A Major Contributor to Poor Quality of Life in Patients With Advanced Cancer

CONTEXT

Quality of life (QoL) and depression are important patient-reported outcomes in cancer care. However, the relative importance of depression severity in predicting QoL remains unclear because of few methodologically sound studies.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether depression contributes to impairment of QoL irrespective of prognostic factors and symptom burden.

METHODS

A total of 563 patients were included from the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative-Computerized Symptom Assessment Study, an international, multi-center, cross-sectional study. The relative importance of prognostic factors (systemic inflammation [modified Glasgow Prognostic Score-mGPS]), co-morbidities and physical performance (Karnofsky Performance Status), symptom burden (loss of appetite, breathlessness, nausea [Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale], and pain [Brief Pain Inventory]), and depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire 9) in predicting Global Health/QoL (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC-QLQ-C30]) were assessed using hierarchical multiple regression models.

RESULTS

Fifty-five percent were women, median age was 64 years, 87% had metastatic disease, median Karnofsky Performance Status was 70, and mean global QoL was 50.5 (SD = 23.3). Worse QoL was associated with increased systemic inflammation (mGPS = 1 β = -0.12, P = 0.003; mGPS = 2 β = -0.09, P = 0.023), lower physical performance (β = 0.17, P < 0.001), reduced appetite (β = -0.15, P < 0.001), breathlessness (β = -0.11, P = 0.004), pain (β = -0.14, P = 0.002), and higher depression severity (β = -0.27, P < 0.001). The full model accounted for 29% of the observed variance in QoL scores. The strongest predictor was depression severity, accounting for 5.8% of the variance.

CONCLUSION

Depression severity was the strongest single predictor of poorer QoL in this sample of patients with advanced cancer, after accounting for a wide range of clinically relevant variables. Future studies should investigate the contribution of psychosocial variables on QoL. Our findings emphasize the importance of managing depression to achieve the best possible QoL for these patients.

Quality of Life following Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Single and Multiple Brain Metastases

BACKGROUND: Given the neurological morbidity and poor prognosis associated with brain metastases, it is critical to deliver appropriate therapy while remaining mindful of patient quality of life (QOL). For many patients, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) effectively controls intracranial disease, but QOL outcomes have not been characterized.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of number of brain metastases upon QOL preservation following SRS.

METHODS: The EuroQol 5 Dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) and Patient Health Questionnaire 9 instruments were prospectively collected from a cohort of patients undergoing SRS for brain metastasis between 2008 and 2015. These instruments served as measures of overall QOL and depression. QOL deterioration exceeding the minimum clinically important difference was considered failure. Freedom from 12-month EQ-5D index failure was the primary outcome.

RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-two SRS treatments (67 patients, 421 lesions) were eligible for inclusion. Intracranial failure (local or distant) occurred following 61% of treatments. Among 421 lesions, 8% progressed locally. Median follow-up was 12 months.

All subscores of the EQ-5D instrument expectantly worsened at last follow-up; however, the magnitude of this difference (0.079) did not exceed the EQ-5D index minimum clinically important difference (mean 0.752 vs 0.673, P &lt; .01). Twelve-month EQ-5D index QOL preservation was 79%. Patients with more than 3 brain metastases had a greater rate of EQ-5D index deterioration (hazard ratio 4.14, P &lt; .01) than those with a single metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with brain metastasis, QOL preservation must remain paramount as multimodality therapy continues to improve. In the present investigation, 12-month QOL preservation was 79%. However, patients with more than 3 brain metastases were at significantly greater risk for QOL decline.

Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale: Initial Validation in Three Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

We examine the reliability and validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS)-which combines the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale and seven-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale-as a composite measure of depression and anxiety.

METHODS

Baseline data from 896 patients enrolled in two primary-care based trials of chronic pain and one oncology-practice-based trial of depression and pain were analyzed. The internal reliability, standard error of measurement, and convergent, construct, and factor structure validity, as well as sensitivity to change of the PHQ-ADS were examined.

RESULTS

The PHQ-ADS demonstrated high internal reliability (Cronbach α values of .8 to .9) in all three trials. PHQ-ADS scores can range from 0 to 48 (with higher scores indicating more severe depression/anxiety), and the estimated standard error of measurement was approximately 3 to 4 points. The PHQ-ADS showed strong convergent (most correlations, 0.7-0.8 range) and construct (most correlations, 0.4-0.6 range) validity when examining its association with other mental health, quality of life, and disability measures. PHQ-ADS cutpoints of 10, 20, and 30 indicated mild, moderate, and severe levels of depression/anxiety, respectively. Bifactor analysis showed sufficient unidimensionality of the PHQ-ADS score. PHQ-ADS change scores at 3 months differentiated (p < .0001) between individuals classified as worse, stable, or improved by a reference measure, providing preliminary evidence for sensitivity to change.

CONCLUSIONS

The PHQ-ADS may be a reliable and valid composite measure of depression and anxiety which, if validated in other populations, could be useful as a single measure for jointly assessing two of the most common psychological conditions in clinical practice and research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00926588 (SCOPE); NCT00386243 (ESCAPE); NCT00313573 (INCPAD).

Assessment of depression severity with the PHQ-9 in cancer patients and in the general population

BACKGROUND

The Patient Health Questionnaire PHQ-9 is a widely used instrument to screen for depression in clinical research. The first aim of this study was to psychometrically test the PHQ-9 in a large sample of cancer patients. The second aim was to calculate unbiased estimates of the depression burden for several cancer groups taking into account age and gender distributions.

METHODS

A sample of 2,059 cancer patients with varying diagnoses were examined in this study six months after discharge from a rehabilitation clinic. A representative sample of 2,693 people from the general population served as controls. Expected PHQ-9 mean scores of the general population sample, regressed on age and gender, were calculated to enable a fair comparison of different groups of cancer patients.

RESULTS

While the reliability (Cronbach's alpha) for the PHQ-9 scale was good (alpha ≥ 0.84), the CFA fit indices of the one-dimensional solution were unsatisfactory in the patients' sample. The factorial analysis confirmed two factors. PHQ-9 mean scores for 15 types of cancer are given, ranging from 4.0 (prostate) to 8.2 (thyroid gland). Differences between expected mean scores (derived from the general population) and raw mean scores of the cancer subsamples are reported that provide a better estimate of the depression burden.

CONCLUSIONS

The results confirmed that the PHQ-9 performs well in testing depression in cancer patients. Regression coefficients can be used for performing unbiased comparisons among cancer groups, not only for this study. The burden of patients with testis cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma is underestimated when age and gender are not taken into account.

Patient-reported depression measures in cancer: a meta-review

The patient-reported depression measures that perform best in oncology settings have not yet been identified. We did a meta-review to integrate the findings of reviews of more than 50 depression measures used in adults with, or recovering from, any type of cancer. We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and grey literature from 1999 to 2014 to identify 19 reviews representing 372 primary studies. 11 reviews were rated as being of high quality (defined as meeting at least 20 criteria in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement). The Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) was the most thoroughly evaluated measure, but was limited by cutpoint variability. The HADS had moderate screening utility indices and was least recommended in advanced cancer or palliative care. The Beck Depression Inventory was more generalisable across cancer types and disease stages, with good indices for screening and case finding. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale was the best-weighted measure in terms of responsiveness. This meta-review provides a comprehensive overview of the strengths and limitations of available depression measures. It can inform the choice of the best measure for specific settings and purposes.

Depression in advanced cancer--assessment challenges and associations with disease load

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced cancer commonly experience multiple somatic symptoms and declining functioning. Some highly prevalent symptoms also overlap with diagnostic symptom-criteria of depression. Thus, assessing depression in these patients can be challenging. We therefore investigated 1) the effect of different scoring-methods of depressive symptoms on detecting depression, and 2) the relationship between disease load and depression amongst patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

The sample included 969 patients in the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative-Computer Symptom Assessment Study (EPCRC-CSA). Inclusion criteria were: incurable metastatic/locally advanced cancer and ≥ 18 years. Biomarkers and length of survival were registered from patient-records. Depression was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and applying three scoring-methods: inclusive (algorithm scoring including the somatic symptom-criteria), exclusive (algorithm scoring excluding the somatic symptom-criteria) and sum-score (sum of all symptoms with a cut-off ≥ 8).

RESULTS

Depression prevalence rates varied according to scoring-method: inclusive 13.7%, exclusive 14.9% and sum-score 45.3%. Agreement between the algorithm scoring-methods was excellent (Kappa = 0.81), but low between the inclusive and sum scoring-methods (Kappa = 0.32). Depression was significantly associated with more pain (OR-range: 1.09-1.19, p < 0.001-0.04) and lower performance status (KPS-score, OR-range = 0.68-0.72, p < 0.001) irrespective of scoring-method.

LIMITATIONS

Depression was assessed using self-report, not clinical interviews.

CONCLUSIONS

The scoring-method, not excluding somatic symptoms, had the greatest effect on assessment outcomes. Increasing pain and poorer than expected physical condition should alert clinicians to possible co-morbid depression. The large discrepancy in prevalence rates between scoring-methods reinforces the need for consensus and validation of depression definitions and assessment in populations with high disease load.

Operating characteristics of PROMIS four-item depression and anxiety scales in primary care patients with chronic pain

OBJECTIVE

Depression and anxiety are prevalent in patients with chronic pain and adversely affect pain, quality of life, and treatment response. The purpose of this psychometric study was to determine the reliability and validity of the four-item Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression and anxiety scales in patients with chronic pain.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data from the Stepped Care to Optimize Pain care Effectiveness study, a randomized clinical trial of optimized analgesic therapy.

SETTING

Five primary care clinics at the Roudebush VA Medical Center (RVAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana.

SUBJECTS

Two hundred forty-four primary care patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

All patients completed the four-item depression and anxiety scales from the PROMIS 29-item profile, as well as several other validated psychological measures. The minimally important difference (MID) using the standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated for each scale, and convergent validity was assessed by interscale correlations at baseline and 3 months. Operating characteristics of the PROMIS measures for detecting patients who had probable major depression or were anxiety-disorder screen-positive were calculated.

RESULTS

The PROMIS scales had good internal reliability, and the MID (as represented by two SEMs) was 2 points for the depression scale and 2.5 points for the anxiety scale. Convergent validity was supported by strong interscale correlations. The optimal screening cutpoint on the 4- to 20-point PROMIS scales appeared to be 8 for both the depression and anxiety scales.

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMIS four-item depression and anxiety scales are reasonable options as ultra-brief measures for screening in patients with chronic pain.

Cognition in breast cancer survivors: hormones versus depression

BACKGROUND

OBJECTIVE

Breast cancer survivors receiving hormone treatment and/or endorsing histories of receiving chemotherapy report changes in their cognitive capacity, which is often not supported by formal testing. To address these conflicting reports, this study examined survivors' applied cognitive capacity and its association with hormone treatment, depression, and selected demographics.

METHODS

A descriptive, correlational, cross-sectional survey design was employed. There were 357 women who completed a survey comprised of 69 questions. The survey included both investigator-developed questions and instruments from the PROMIS(®) system.

RESULTS

There were significant main effects for hormone therapy, race, and depression. Depression explained the largest portion of variance of the perceived decreases in cognitive function among breast cancer survivors.

CONCLUSIONS

Survivor complaints of changes in cognitive function may be a predictor for evaluating the presence of mood disorders and less a function of hormone therapy or chemotherapy history.

Feasibility study of an interactive multimedia electronic problem solving treatment program for depression: a preliminary uncontrolled trial

Computer-based depression interventions lacking live therapist support have difficulty engaging users. This study evaluated the usability, acceptability, credibility, therapeutic alliance and efficacy of a stand-alone multimedia, interactive, computer-based Problem Solving Treatment program (ePST™) for depression. The program simulated live treatment from an expert PST therapist, and delivered 6 ePST™ sessions over 9weeks. Twenty-nine participants with moderate-severe symptoms received the intervention; 23 completed a minimally adequate dose of ePST™ (at least 4 sessions). Program usability, acceptability, credibility, and therapeutic alliance were assessed at treatment midpoint and endpoint. Depressive symptoms and health-related functioning were assessed at baseline, treatment midpoint (4weeks), and study endpoint (10weeks). Depression outcomes and therapeutic alliance ratings were also compared to previously published research on live PST and computer-based depression therapy. Participants rated the program as highly usable, acceptable, and credible, and reported a therapeutic alliance with the program comparable to that observed in live therapy. Depressive symptoms improved significantly over time. These findings also provide preliminary evidence that ePST™ may be effective as a depression treatment. Larger clinical trials with diverse samples are indicated.

Psychopathological profile and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cirrhosis

In some tumors, psychosocial interventions may enhance health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients. The effects of psychological variables on HRQOL in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients have been rarely assessed. The aim of this work is to evaluate the psychopathological profile of HCC and cirrhotic patients and its effect on HRQOL. Twenty-four HCC patients (median age 71, Child A 21, Child B 3), 22 cirrhotic patients (median age 68, Child A 20, Child B 2) and 20 control subjects were included in this study. Each subject completes four questionnaires: medical outcomes study short form-36 (SF-36, HRQOL evaluation); Hamilton-D (quantitative evaluation of depression; positive ≥8); symptom check list 90-revised (SCL 90-R, general psychopathological profile; nine domains, each positive >1); Toronto alexithymia scale (TAS 20) (positive ≥60). SCL 90-R: cirrhotic patients differ from HCC subjects for somatization (SOM) (M ± SD 1.09 ± 0.6 vs 0.65 ± 0.6; p = 0.01) and anxiety (M ± SD 0.85 ± 0.46 vs 0.58 ± 0.38; p = 0.01) items. TAS 20: positive in 50% of HCC patients, in 54% of cirrhotic patients (p = n.s.) and in none of controls. Hamilton-D: higher scores in cirrhotic patients than in the HCC group (86 vs 46%; p = 0.005). SF-36: each item, except bodily pain, is lower in both group of patients in comparison with controls. Pearson correlation analysis shows negative correlations on HRQOL of depression, SOM and anxiety both in cirrhotic and HCC subjects, also of obsessive-compulsive and hostility items in HCC. This is the first report on the psychopathological profile of HCC patients: the results open questions on the role of psychological interventions that may improve HRQOL of patients before treatment and in the follow-up.

RESTORE: an exploratory trial of an online intervention to enhance self-efficacy to manage problems associated with cancer-related fatigue following primary cancer treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

There are over 25 million people worldwide living with or beyond cancer and this number is increasing. Cancer survivors face a range of problems following primary treatment. One of the most frequently reported and distressing symptoms experienced by cancer survivors is fatigue. There is growing support for survivors who are experiencing problems after cancer treatment to engage in supported self-management. To date there is some evidence of effective interventions to manage fatigue in this population; however, to our knowledge there are no online resources that draw on this information to support self-management of fatigue. This paper describes the protocol for an exploratory randomized controlled trial of an online intervention to support self-management of cancer-related fatigue after primary cancer treatment.

Methods/design

This is a parallel-group two-armed (1:1) exploratory randomized controlled trial including 125 cancer survivors experiencing fatigue (scoring ≥4 on a unidimensional 11-point numeric rating scale for fatigue intensity) within five years of primary treatment completion with curative intent. Participants will be recruited from 13 NHS Trusts across the UK and randomized to either the online intervention (RESTORE), or a leaflet comparator (Macmillan Cancer Backup, Coping with Fatigue). The primary outcome is a change in Perceived Self-Efficacy for Fatigue Self-Management (as measured by the Perceived Self-Efficacy for Fatigue Self-Management Instrument). Secondary outcomes include impact on perception and experience of fatigue (measured by the Brief Fatigue Inventory), and quality of life (measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General and the Personal Wellbeing Index). Outcome measures will be collected at baseline, 6 weeks (completion of intervention), and 3 months. Process evaluation (including telephone interviews with recruiting staff and participants) will determine acceptability of the intervention and trial processes.

Discussion

Data from this trial will be used to refine the intervention and contribute to the design of an effectiveness trial. This intervention will be expanded to address other cancer-related problems important to cancer survivors following primary cancer treatment.

Trial registration

ISRCTN67521059